What is it that disturbs us?

I've been carefully considering which writings I should use to support my discussion. At the same time I'm trying to solidify the actual direction of my essay. I want the questions I address in the paper to be specific enough so that I can actually get somewhere with it. So I guess I don't really know what it is I'm doing. But here's my angle so far:

A large percentage of the public is not aware of the lengths to which advertisers will go to convince them of how they should think, and how they should act. What is it about the idea of consciousness construction, and the tactic of appealling to what we generally consider to be the unconscious mind that horrifies many people? Do the American Cultural values of independence and individualism bring about this repugnance? Or is it a reflexive reaction to what seems to be an unethical system of control?

Edging Toward a Paper

I'm prepared to give credit where it's due: the persuaders (some of them- Luntz especially) have a brilliant gig going. They are making money and swaying public opinion in a big way. Like Meredith, though, I think the public is a little smarter than they were portrayed in the video. However amazing a product looks in an ad, most consumers will do a little more research, ask for others' opinions at least, before buying. I think, therefore, that the advertising world, for all its persuasion, is not so dangerous a thing, and can only interest us, it cannot force us to buy anything. They cannot spoon feed us our opinions, no matter how hard they may try. By the advertising world, however, I mean the agencies trying to sell us products and services.
When it comes to politics, I think the persuaders become not only much more powerful in their ability to spoon feed, but also much more dangerous to the public mind. Especially when it comes to the persuaders employed by the ruling government, we see a language shift that takes a concept the public disdains and makes it into a very friendly sounding national plan that everyone is willing to accept. When the government has a significant say in what broadcasters announce on television and what reporters write in newspapers, the public has less access to an unbiased truth. The new lingo, as we have seen, is everywhere. And while Bernays made some attempt to defend his power as a persuader, Luntz boldly goes where no man has gone before and turns public opinion with not a hint of an excuse. I'm not sure where I'm going with all this yet, hopefully my paper will be a little narrower, but I feel that the persuaders involved in the rhetoric of politics need to be very careful of what they're feeding the public, and that the public needs to be very wary of what they see and read, and that an understanding of the semantics of rhetoric is very important at this time in history, and that the public's general lack of that knowledge is in fact allowing the persuaders to spoon feed Americans their opinions. Uh-oh....

Criticism of my paper

Reviewing my paper, I am concerned that I'm being hypercritical of the persuaders and perhaps not giving us (the public) enough credit. I'm spending a lot of energy focusing on where this idea I have of the persuaders spoon feeding us our culture, morals, and ethics came from and not enough on what we do about it. It's very easy for me to get on my soapbox and say that I'm not swayed by the politicians and the advertisers because because I know me, and I know my friends and my family and what we agree and disagree with and why. What I don't know is how other people feel about this bombardment of propaganda. Maybe I'm not giving enough credit and what I consider apathy is in fact a person's choice to, after doing their own research, go ahead and purchase whatever the persuaders were selling, be it a product or a president, not because they were being told to, but because they honestly and for their own personal reasons desired it. In Manipulating Public Opinion, Bernays called propaganda - "the psychology of public persuasion" (52) - "a technique for the mass distribution of ideas" (52) Under that definition, it's down right idealistic: getting as many ideas to as many different people as possible. For you see, Bernays fails to discriminate against who is distributing what. While it's only one sentence, I think it's worth holding on it. It gives the public the instruction and the power to control their own opinion. I think that's an idea I should look at more closely.

George Lakeoff

I found it interesting that within the first page he tell us, "Do not use their language." Yet throughout the article he sighted one example where it paid off to use "their" language; in the case of Bill Clinton. The difference here might be that Clinton took contol and did as he chose to by using "their language and their words to describie it." Instead of the original suggestion that using the othersides' language could back you in w hole like it did Nixon, with his "not a crook" comment.

The parent models refelect to me that there not only is a clash in the moral progressive conflicts of society relating to issues of welfare, protection and class casting in terms of money. Also, no matter what paths as individuals we chose and no matter what values we possess we have no real say on anything government related since we do not exercise power within the government. Like Bush with the permission slip speech, America is the adult and does what it wants to when it desides to. If we refer to the "nations as people" hypothesis- the are many out there that disagree with America the right and portray America the wrong. Our ideas and values might devide us or bring us to the table as humanitarians- that doesn't give us any say-so with the government.

... Feeling overwhelmed !!

Paper blog

Today’s manipulation is placed in the hands of much less respected people who have different intentions of changing public opinion. Bernays says, “In this age, there must be a technique for the mass distribution of ideas. Public opinion can be moved, directed, and formed by such a technique. But at the core of this great heterogeneous body of public opinion is a tenacious will to live, to progress, to move in the direction of ultimate social and individual benefit.” (Bernays, p 57). If manipulating public opinion is for the good of the public, how do politicians and advertisers justify their manipulation?
And what is the punishment when our government officials intentionally sway the public’s focus to either unimportant issues or straight up lies? There is none. Public manipulation has been happening for so many years, and has been digressing so far from what it at first was supposed to do that we now live in a world where public manipulation is used to give government officials what they want. With the little time I have to devote to reading the newspaper, I would like to think that my government officials can do it for me while still giving me the information I need to know on select issues. But what if I do not agree with the “important issues” my government is promoting to the public?

paper blog ...

Here are some arguments from my paper; however, I must say I'm begining to feel qutie differently about the act of persuasion. I think I'm a little too critical on how it is harming us, and not considering at all how (or if) it is helping us....

After examining some of the acts of persuasion I can’t help but feel like I am living in a Big Brother society, where although it appears to be free willed, every move I make and every desire I feel is ultimately controlled by the persuaders. This is demeaning to humanity. To say that the average man is in adequate to make his own decision, and must be swayed by the act of persuasion is very scary. We are United States citizens, we are suppose have freedoms to do and feel however we want, and although exteriorly it appears that we do, essentially we are all just dictated by society.

The common belief is: we are a democracy, we elect our own leaders, our leaders work to coincide with our values and ethics. However, as Walter Lippmann points out in “The Disenchanted Man,” this is very far from the truth. “The actual governing is made up of a multitude of arrangements on specific questions by particular individuals. These rarely become visible to the private citizen. They are altogether too numerous, too complicated, too obscure in their effects to become the subject of any continuing exercise of public opinion.” (36) Lippmann explains that the average man is incapable of playing a role in our democracy. It is not the common or private citizen who plays a role in our society, but instead an elect few who are not only smart enough to persuade us into voting for them, but also smart enough to persuade us into believing that we have a say in our democracy.
One of the conservative’s real strengths is their use of language. They use words such as “Healthy forest,” “No Child Left Behind,” these words “mollify people who have nurturant values (progressives), while the real policies are strict father policies (conservatives). This mollifies, even attracts, the people in the middle who have qualms about you. This is the use of Orwellian language- language that means the opposite of what it says- to appease people in the middle at the same time as you pump up the base. This is part of conservative strategy.” (22). For instance the “No Child Left Behind” bill which President Bush took credit for; the connotation of the bill sounds like it is implemented to improve education, and make sure America’s schools are giving each student a rightful chance to succeed. In reality, it is implementing standardized test, rewarding the schools that do well (usually wealthy districts) and taking away from schools that do poorly, the ones who really need the money.

Paper Blog

As outlined on the syllabus, the following paragraphs are my main arguments and some supporting ideas:

According to the film The Persuaders, the big bad advertising industry is bombarding the public with propaganda aimed at selling products. However, before The Persuaders was even a gleam in PBS’s eye, Edward Bernays said, “The manipulation of the public mind…serves a social function.” Bernays, in his essay “Manipulating Public Opinion,” cites the example of the NAICP conference in Atlanta.

Soon, it became clear to the NAICP that they needed to do something to attract attention to their cause. They carefully planned the location of their conference and hand-picked speakers from various backgrounds and ethnicities.

Another point of interest, presented by Walter Lippman in “The Disenchanted Man,” is politics, focusing mainly on elections. According to Lippman, political matters confuse common people, and no one individual can possibly understand everything that happens in the government.

The confusion discourages people to the point of apathy, and they just don’t vote when Election Day rolls around. Because of this, the media and campaign managers work very hard to draw people to the polls. They set up campaigns and televised debates, painting the two candidates to be political crusaders both out to save the world using their platform.

Now, why do persuaders try to influence opinions of the general public? In a lot of cases, it’s their job, so they persuade to keep from getting fired. Yes, the evil persuaders do try to make a profit. Profit serves as the main purpose for commercial advertising. Even Bernays stepped down off his platform of wholesome virtue to discuss the rescue of the hat industry and the salad dressing art expo.

Re reading Luntz, I'm struck by his instruction to think about the environment and other issues in terms of a "story". "A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth." (pg 132) It makes me wonder why this is; when in the course of our society did we begin to favor this emotional approach? Our ability to feel and recognize emotion, to empathize and sympathize is inherent, instinctual. Public relations has been a part of 'government' as long as government has been around, but when did they - the mysterious "they" who do our thinking for us - decide to prey upon our emotional capacities in this manner? I'm not ignorant of the fact that those responsible for portraying the public image of this institution have always used a form of this appeal, in a "we're looking out for your best interests" way, but perhaps I was labouring under the misinformation that they used a fact-based approach. Hopeful candidates have been told for years that they need to be personable, likeable, approachable. They need to get their ratings up and so they kiss babies. But when did the idea of emotional politics vs objective politics really take off? I wonder if its possible it began when women were allowed to vote, changing the way candidates approached voters with the theory that "rational" men didn't require someone to "tug at their heart strings" to get them to vote on an issue.

But really I think the point of my rambling is to question why we allow this to happen. Why are we complacent about this deliberate cover up? How is it so many of us don't take any accountability for educating ourselves? I admit I fall into Luntz's theory- I'm definitely susceptible to compelling narrative and am lazy about researching all the facts. However, this begs the question- should we be responsible for finding out all the information ourselves? For certain circumstances, we definitely should be, but I'm not so sure about our government. In the true spirit of a democracy, shouldn't we be presented with all the facts of an issue - as unbiased as possible - before being responsible for choosing the party to fix it? I realize this is a highly idealistic position, and that people might not even consider the facts before voting, but I feel it should be easily and readably available to those who want it. Is there no method for succinctly listing the pertinent information without having to resort to fabricating stories full of double entendre and deeply embedded code? Of course there is. But it would put Luntz out of a job.

Persuaders & Kairos

The "clutter crisis" is a struggle to breathe through, advertisers are constant prospectors for new space. The cut- throat economic climate has contributed to the in your face manipulation of marketing. Integrating products into programs, product placement with "seemless" transitions are key in successfully reaching a targeted broad audience. What does the public want to hear? How should the product be presented to the public? What are the best investments in persuading people? The absolute goal of persuasion is to indue others to persuade as well.

Seizing the moment, the exegency of opening oppertunities to possibilities for response. Kairos being of time and space, right there: right then or right here: right now. Kairos is concerned about balance of situations as depected ithrough some of the art. Moreover the world is always changing and knowledge sometimes can't be proved certain. Kairos shows the importance of how different arguments are influenced by differentforces of discourse. The more complex a rhetorical situation; the more increase in the complexity of dynamics involved in the kairos struggle over an issue.

Lakoff Reading/Persuaders

“The Persuaders” proved to be a real eye-opener for me. I’ve always watched commercials and glanced at billboards but never gave a second thought as to the complicated process behind the catchy phrases. In my mind I assumed a man or woman trying to come up with a clever phrase, sitting at a desk with a trash can piled high with crumpled papers. Little did I know how wrong I would be. In one instance I’m amazed at the complicated process behind advertising, but at the same time I feel almost manipulated at how much the “persuaders” try to relate to the public for the sole purpose of reaping benefits.

With this said, I am also surprised at what I read in Lakoff's "Framing 101: How to Take Back Public Discourse". It was the talk of "family values" and how they apply to the nation as a whole, and how the government (President mainly) has used this to his benefit. In his State of the Union address, he used the statement "We do not need a permission slip", this takes the listeners back to elementary school where its the student, not the teacher, that asks for a permission slip. Mr. President was immediately implying that we (United States), indeed are the teacher, which gives a sense of pride to those who knew what he was implying, and who will want to stand behind a proud leader.

I have never been given such an in depth look at the process behind winning public approval/cooperation. I am almost blown away at the way not only companies, but the President of the United States has gone to such extremes to sell something, or win people over. I am left with mixed feelings after viewing "The Persuaders", and readind Lackoff's peice, and I am left wondering if I have ever fallen for an advertisers trick.

Lakoff: Politics in Metaphors

The Persuaders offers an interesting approach to the way we perceive society, specifically, the way the media makes us perceive American ideals. This creative, cynical, and rather depressing look at our money driven world propels us to rethink what we as American's want. Since it is hard today to say that we are proud of ourselves as a nation, at least, to the masses of people who are opposed to the incumbent government, we, or I, must change our perspective of how we view ourselves. In other words, we as a nation need to be more self-reflective. I say this because if we sincerely wish, or hope, for change we must consider the numerous outlets available to make this country better (better meaning more tolerant, less selfish and more selfless, less worldly and more compassionate, and, above all, less egotistical). A few things need to happen before we can change this world set apart by its vibrant array of colors and its overwhelmingly competitive make-up. First, the need for individuality needs to be suppressed. According to Lazere, if we all were perfectly unique individuals with perfectly unique and different ideals then we would be in mere chaos. The notion that our ideas may reflect others and may not truly be exclusive, then, would perhaps calm any uncertainties we have about government or authority. If we as individuals are able to see that each one of us are crucial parts to making this nation work then it may work after all. In other words, though people have varying degrees of struggle, no one person's struggle is more important than another. This essentially breeds community; instead of the seemingly sole ideal that we can only seek progression for ourselves and nobody else, we see that an accord can be reached, one where we can work together instead of competing fiercely against each other.

These ideas are very idealistic, and as a skeptic, they will probably never be attained. However, it is okay to hope for something like this, and this may come about if we put our ideas to work. That is, if we listen to people like George Lakoff who suggests we examine our nation not by what its ideals are, but how we go about acquiring those ideals in a more meaningful way. Lakoff uses metaphors brilliantly when he talks about politics. As a former linguist, he is able to step out of the realm of political specifics and look at politics as it functions in society. His metaphors are much like structuralist tactics in literary criticism. For example, the theorist would argue that it is not what is inside a narrative that is particularly important, it is, however, the way that small idea functions as a part of the larger work or all-encompassing idea. Though it is obvious that Lakoff is a liberal democrat, he is able, I think, to be sensitive toward conservative ideals. He looks at the various techniques republicans use, such as the father figure as moral regulator, and how they use that in their political campaigns (Lakoff, 9). He understands that simply attacking one party will not accomplish anything. People are unwilling to accept that sort of brutality. Instead there needs to be an explicit stance, not just idea, that will spill out into other areas of political, moral, and social standards.

More to Consumers?

Watching The Persuaders gave me a helpless feeling that our world is becoming one big advertisement. As this was most likely one of their points, it begs the question..is this a bad thing? Do Americans consume more than the rest of the world? I think we do. And if so, does any of this have to do with the large marketing schemes that generate millions and millions of dollars in this country?
There is so much emphasis placed on looks in this country: what clothes to buy to feel important, or cool, or smart; what food to eat to "get healthy" whether it be low carb, low fat, organic, atkins, or south beach; to even such trivial things are what to have to drink. It all comes down to one question- is it one big ploy to get us to buy these things? In the end, it is all material stuff. Are we not emptying our pockets and increasing our credit card limits (which is an entirely different topic) to continuously fill up our pockets and shopping bags with more stuff? For what? Could it be that it's a neverending cycle that advertisers are behind in order to keep us wanting more?
It seems ironic: advertisers are constantly trying to lure us in to their products by marketing values and emotions that we need to feel; but in the end, they can never give us what we truly need, or else we wouldn't go back. So it seems like the only thing at the end of the "marketing world" road is just that--lots and lots of stuff.
We, as a society, have to take responsibility for being lured in to this ploy. Can we not start looking for true meaning in life beyond the Gap? I can't say I know much about Europe, but it sure looks as if they've got a better grasp on the meaning of life than we do.

Lackoff Reading

After reading Lakoff's "Don't Think of an Elephant" I have come to a new understanding of politics. I really found the piece interesting and the way he explained things helped me better understand where the parties where coming from and why they vote the way they do. I really thought Lakoff had a good undestanding of the parties. I found it very interesting when he mentioned that Democrats value transparency in politics. Obviously this holds true to some extent because our two assigned readings for this week were both manuals on how to use language to get people to vote for your candidate. The Manuel from the Republicans was leaked on the internet while the Manuel from the Democrats was not only printed but was a New York Times Bestseller. I also saw the Ideas of Bernays in this book. One of the faulty ideas that Lakoff claims liberals have is that " The truth will set us free. If we just tell people the facts, since people are basically rational beings, they'll all reach the right conclusion." Just like Bernays, Lakoff says this is faulty reasoning because people vote with their identities, even if that means voting against what is in their best interest. If their was any doubt that Bernays' work was still relevant in our society, this piece showed that it is.

Guilty as charged?

I listened and attempted to make some notes while watching The Persuaders in class, and I contemplated as to how I felt about the issue at hand. The entire movie was made in efforts to open our eyes to the countless ways we are vulnerable to the media's influence on us, both as consumers, and opinion holders. Did anyone else catch the brand name on the computer that he was typing on throughout the entire movie? I was thinking that maybe this was him trying to "test" us on the issue. Or maybe the entire thing was made to see how many computers could be sold after the movie came out?

I remeber a time when labels of Coke, Pepsi, Aquafina, Gateway Computers, etc. were all replaced by generic names in movies, television shows, or anything besides commercials that people watched. I guess I just wasn't paying attention between that time and now, when companies have gotten smart and put their product name in big, bold letters for all to see. Great marketing technique, obviously - I didn't even notice.

Maybe I'm alone in this mindset, but I don't think that the persuaders are doing anything ethically or morally wrong because I believe that people are responsible for their actions. Commercials set in between television programs are becoming obsolete because more and more people are purchasing higher forms of cable; they don't have to wait for commercials to end - they can simply fast-forward right through them. So this makes the persuaders go one step further and put their product into movies that we have a general interest in. For example, Harold and Kumar go to White Castle. Obviously the people in charge of advertising for White Castle are trying to build a crowd of consumers, (all about our age) because they think we aren't educated enough to see that they want us to waste our hard earned money on fast-food. But the movie didn't make me want to go to White Castle and spend $50 on a bunch of hamburgers. It just made me smile that it was an actual chain restaurant that they were referring to the entire time. Another example would be Adam Sandler's Eight Crazy Nights. One particular scene in that movie showed like 15 chain stores that we all know of and are familiar with. But it's not like I went there right afterward and bought them out. Again, it just made me relate to the movie more since they were referring to actual stores that I have been in and am familiar with.

The whole idea that there is an "unconscious code for products" is a bunch of bologna, in my opinion. There's no way that a human being can induce someone to persuade themselves. If it's something that you need, or that the advertiser makes you believe you need, that's a different story. But individually, you should know the difference. I do, however, believe that advertisers play on people's weaknesses, but I would call that good advertising. For example, good avertisers today know that there is a multitude of Americans who are weight conscious. Knowing this, they can obviously use it to their advantage and advertise with thin, beautiful people for their products. Or if advertisers pay attention to the ratings of television shows/series, they can tell which shows get the most audience. Therefore, they can pay to have their product all over the screen. (Absolut Hunk - Sex and the City) But again, if you go out and buy Absolut Vodka instead of Grey Goose because Samantha's playtoy of the season was seen on a pseudo ad in the show, then that's your own stupidity.

I can say that I was vulnerable to some things that The Persuaders pointed out to me in the movie. Vulnerable meaning that I didn't even realize what I was being told; not vulnerable in the fact that I bought something that I didn't really need. I know how hard I work for the money I have, as do all of you I am sure. So that makes me skeptical when I see an advertisement for "miracle" cream to clean up every blemish on my entire face for the REST OF MY LIFE!!! But hey, the persuaders know that we're getting smarter. So in turn, they're getting smarter too. They put Jessica Simpson as the spokesperson for the stuff, because hey, she knows exactly what she's talking about!!

Luntz Paper

I just finished reading the Luntz paper (obviously), and I think it makes quite a few good points. However, it is pretty obvious that there is an enormous hole in the ozone layer, so I find it hard to believe that there is still disagreement about pollution causing global warming. Obviously it happened; the only argument is over extent.

Anyway, the whole thing isn't really about the environment. The paper advised Republicans on how to make the American people understand their view and maybe even adopt it. For one thing, yes, the Republicans care about the environment. Think about it. We always say how the Republicans are rich, country club, WASPs. It's true. Of course the same holds true for Democrats. But look at it this way: If the sea level rises, their yacht clubs get flooded. If the grass is destroyed, no more golf. Not to mention that they also have to eat and drink from the food and water that comes from the ground.

So no one is really anti-environment. I do agree that companies should be made to pollute less, but the paper proves very accurate. Federal regulations require a lot of paperwork and rarely prove fruitful. Look what happened with no child left behind. Good idea, horrible results.

Use of "climate change" does seem like propaganda, but think about people for a second. Don't masses of people tend to panic over nothing? Remember Y2K? People aren't smart. If anything, this use of "climate change" makes people laugh and say, "You mean global warming?" Even that relieves the tension somewhat.

All in all, some very good persuasive techniques. Now, if only someone could get the two parties to stop bickering and combine their ideas.

Persuaders

After watching The Persuaders and learning about the different tactics of manipulation they use I began to wonder if this would change the way I looked at advertising industry. I feel like now I know all the secrets, but yet I am still buying into them. It's kind of like you know you're getting cheated on by a significant other, but you're still dating him/her. I've been thinking about it a lot lately and trying to decide if it is the result of advertising and persuasion which make us constantly yearn for more things, or if it just embedded into use innately. Simply put- is it society which makes us consumers or are we born with it? Just a thought I was pondering.

Luntz Reading

After watching the video in class and reading the piece on the environment by Luntz, I was a bit disappointed. I am an Environmental student, so this topic sort of hit home to me. I noticed first of all that the author seems to be republican, and, therefore obviously I thought the story he told was a bit biased. How can we be expected to believe a republican arguing against democrats, or even vise versa.

There was a lot in the paper I disagreed on. In all my classes thought my four years at KU, and especially last year in Environmental Science Senior Seminar, we touched base with a lot of the issues discussed in this article. I want to first clear up the misconception that Luntz and people everywhere make about global warming. The "warming" part of "Global Warming" is true, yet also a misnomer. We are taught in environmental Biology that global warming doesn't necessarily mean that the earth is just warming. It means that winters are colder, summers are hotter, storms are more violent and more frequent, etc. It means the earth's climate as a whole is changing. Lisa Newton and Catherine Dillingham wrote in their book Watersheds 3 that "predicted warming by 2100 will be 3 to 10 degrees F." They also state that 25% of the world lives less than 1.1 meters above sea level. To me, this is disturbing.

This brings me back to politics, and how they try to persuade people of what the people want to hear. The whole paper by Luntz is directed at giving the people the words they want to hear. Well, I want to see what I want to see. I don't believe people anymore when they say they will do something: I want to see it. I do like his idea of involving scientist's and researchers in a campaign, because the public will believe them much sooner than the politicians.

Bernays: Your Friend & Mine!

I could easily a see a knee-jerk reaction to what Bernays writes, so I'll write against that.

There is a definite tendency to negatively perceive the notions of propaganda and manipulation. Certainly these methods can, have, and will be used for the wrong purposes. In fact it was mentioned in class that wrongful manipulation of the public has been a problem since the days of Socrates. Plato wrote a work entitled "Gorgias" that basically shows that there are some people who consciously exist outside the common realm of logic, reason, and decency, and that knowingly and willfully use rhetoric to get what they want out of a situation, no matter how wrong that seems to the rest of us.

But really, that isn't everyone who gets up to a podium.

Firstly, we can sometimes overlook the fact that not everyone who wants to use propaganda to manipulate the audience is good at doing it. Actually, I think most people are very bad at it-- those are the people doing three-hour infomercials about the Egg Wave in the middle of the night. Yes, we can cut our way through ninety percent of the crap if we keep our minds attentive, and that goes for politics as well. There are probably only a handful of corporations and politicians who really know how to play the game, and people like that will always find a way of getting what they want. They always have.

But there really are GOOD uses for Bernays' tactics such as using "manipulation" to convince someone that Physics explains motion & energy and not their crazy parents or a magical talking bird. Bernays gives an example of a "proper" use of his ideas. The example is in reference to the Civil Rights movement, and how to overcome the obstacle of convincing all those die hard racists that racism is bad. Case in point, Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech is not hinged on reason, necessarily, but on "manipulative" rhetoric. There are good, responsible people in the world that could make use of these methods to work against what the bad people do with them. Logic and reason can't always work because logic and reason aren't the best persuasive tools. Fear and flattery are.

Furthermore, writers of any genre can make use of Bernays' concept of "manipulation" for everyone's benefit. A reader can be entertained, a writer can make money and have the pleasure of pleasing. In fact, it's likely that most successful writers are highly conscious of when and when not to use certain words. That in itself is manipulation because it is twisting a description or situation to get a particular emotional response. If you use sophisticated ways of leading your audience in order to create a mood, what do you call that? Do you call that scary? Do you call it ethically questionable? Personally, I call it craftsmanship.

Polemics: The Never Ending Debate

(I also accidentally posted this as a response to the previous blog. I'm a bit challenged when it comes to the Internet)

This article clarified the way to approach arguments but unfortunately failed to extract the essential reasons/topics that are most widely debated today. It is easy to lay down "ground rules." I could do the same for the way we need to wash ourselves in the shower, but not everyone will wash himself or herself the same way. Likewise, Lazere's somewhat simplified way of battling over issues doesn't account for numerous other ways of conveying a particular point. This is not to say I agree or disagree with this article but, in most cases, it is nearly impossible to sensitively incorporate everyone's ideas into one set of rules. Nevertheless, I believe Lazere's "rules" could work (I like to keep an open mind), however once a topic is opened up, say for instance the morally delicate topics like religion and sex, there is no clear cut way to convince someone on how to considerately debate.

Although I am, in some way, hypocritical in that I am not offering a specific approach to remedy this problem, I would just like to point out why ground rules aren't the ultimate cure. First, when dealing with moral issues, or even some financial and social issues, people become more passionate and less sensitive to the opposition. Second, people turn to their faith (or beliefs) which limits the opposition from convincing them, and limits them from keeping an open mind. Lastly, people will take ideas the wrong way. Perception, then, becomes reality; there is nothing that you can, or cannot, say that the opposition won't find a way to point out that you are being politically incorrect or simply insensitive or ignorant.

Ground Rules for Polemicists

I would like to say that I thoroughly enjoyed this piece. Do I think it could ever be possible in this day and age to see two people with different views have an actual debate without throwing insults and berating the opposition? Why not? Anything's possible. Or better yet, if my country has belittled itself into this act of politics, why can't I hope for better days? I'm not a fan of politics for the simple reason that I don't trust any public figure anymore because there's always that AGENDA. Sure, I could agree with what you have to say, but are you only saying it to get my vote?
But that doesn't mean I excuse myself from politics altogether, like I've heard so many do, because politics is in everything- I'd simply be taking my thoughts out of the ring. Not that I'll most likely ever change anything, but I'd like the chance to know, as much as possible, what's going on in this world. Whether it be by reading newspapers, or online blogs, or gasp! even TV, I reserve the right to then make my own judgements as I believe everyone should do.
This list of ground rules that Lazere goes through may not change anyone's belief in how they debate, but what if it does? What would happen if we just took the ethics out of journalism because no one thought they had to listen?
I understand the goal in politics is getting elected and any means necessary is considered acceptable. But shouldn't the real goal be to make this country better? I'm as much as citizen of this country as anyone, and I find myself frustrated that the fate of our country in its whole is lost to most. And when I watch debates, or even a debate between coworkers who have different views, the same thing ensues- attacking. What happened to listening to one another in the slight chance that we might learn something? We are here for the same reason. If we all started listening to eachother, maybe the politicians would stop using tricky campaign maneuvers and start getting down to work.

More thoughts on Bernays

Reading Bernays essay, I was also struck by how little has really changed in the world of public relations and advertising. It is frightening to think that as far back as 1928 people were already attempting to re-shape the public’s reality through propaganda and selective dissemination of information. I’d like to think society as a whole only recently came to that. I think his ‘new’ technique of “the psychology of public persuasion” is the prevailing means of public relations today. It is upsetting to know Bernays encouraged advertisers to actively research the public in order to discover their weaknesses and prey upon them. It’s even more frightening to think that this still occurs, and that we go along with them, sometimes willingly.
Perhaps because of the date, and perhaps because I also just finished the essay on kairos, I am reminded about how much more fervent public relations/ the manipulating of public opinion became after September 11, 2001. Bernays discussed an experiment in New York endeavoring to chart relationships and attitudes towards specific subjects including religion, morality, and nationalism. He concluded that the attitudes were “often created by a circumstance or circumstances of dramatic moment.” (Manipulating Public Opinion: The Why and the How, pg. 53) I apologize in advance if this offends any readers, but I can’t help being reminded how bombarded we were (and continue to be) by images of that day by companies trying to sell war, cars, clothing, insurance, presidential nominees, hot dogs, and a hundred other consumable goods. It appeared that every item offered came to us under the guise of patriotism, and while I’m sure this did strengthen our sense of community, and help us feel we as individuals could avenge the attacks, this form of propaganda quickly became just that – propaganda. It ultimately served to diminish and even ridicule the events: you need to drive a Hummer to protect your family in the event terrorists come to your street; you should refer to french fries as “freedom fries” to show your support for America and dissatisfaction for a country unwilling to blindly follow yours into war; you should buy American products, vacation within America, sticker an American flag on your car and insist the rest of the world adhere to American beliefs and ideals to give yourself peace of mind.
Bernays states, in his argument against the dangers inherent in dealing with public opinion, “ So that every man who teaches the public how to ask for what it wants is at the same time teaching the public how to safeguard itself against his own possible tyrannous aggressiveness.” (Manipulating Public Opinion: The Why and the How, pg. 52) Why is it we as the public haven’t risen up to defend ourselves against the dictators of public opinion?

Weblog Ethics

I would have to strongly agree with the standards set in "Weblog Ethics" by Rebecca Blood. With so much garbage littering the Internet now, I think it would be nothing short of beneficial to follow the steps she has listed. By following these standards, the weblogger will prove to be credible, even if the weblogger posts a new blog to correct a mistake in his/her previous blog. Credible is an attribute that is not found very often on internet search results these days.

By providing the resources that Blood mentions; such as linking references, correcting misinformation, and keeping original postings as they are and available to view at all times, make for a more reliable source. These standards, combined with her other recomendations will help people like myself better able to sort out/distinguish the discredible information that is out there.

Current Kairos

I was just reading "Kairos and the Rhetorical Situation: Seizing the Moment," (another very long title) and was wondering if we are currently in a "kairos" moment. With hurricane Katrina blowing through the Gulf Coast and relief taking up to four days to arrive, I have seen an extensive amount of Bush bashing lately. (not saying i disagree). One particular is a letter to Bush from Michael Moore. If you haven't read it I would encourage you to check it out, http://seattle.craigslist.org/rnr/96399904.html, . Regardless of if what Moore is saying is factual or not, I think it's a great example of Kairos. It not only bashes Bush for late intervention to the hurricane, but also for various other topics such as: the war in Iraq, reducing Army Corps Engineering budgets, bush taking too much vacation time, bush ignoring a dead soldiers mother, you name it and it's probably there. I thought it was a pretty prime example of how moore seizes the moment to of the hurricane to promote his dislike towards bush.

Conflicts of opinion

From what i am reading from both of these articles, they can be relatively the same in certain ways. Both discuss the conflicts of opinion in certain situations involving journalism. But it caught my attention when Rebecca's pocket was talking about journalism. My major involves journalism so I guess that part of the article was more interesting to me. However, it states that journalists are "acutely aware of the potential for abuse that is inherent in their system..." I don't find that necessarily true because journalism is not always factual based. There are many forms of opinion and journalism relies more on entertainment to catch the attention of the viewers/listeners/readers. There are laws against journalists for "abuse" or displaying false information, depending on the case of course. One other thing I found interesting was in Rebeccas's pocket, the writer lists "standards". The first standard states "Publish as fact only that which you believe to be true". Someone very ignorant could post something inappropriate to my ears, yet makes sense to them. So in reality, there are no true boundaries for posting some form of opinion you may have on a certain event, right?

Comments on Bernays

First of all, if anyone knows how to indent, I would welcome that information. I just read "Manipulating the Public Opinion" and realized that, for something written in 1928, a lot of the techniques he discussed still applied today. For instance, the refusal to buy certain products until approved by Paris could be paralleled to reading fashion magazines or watching E! nowadays.

The story about the NAICP also intrigued me. For one thing, I'm suprised that they would say the organization was for the improvement of colored people, like they were defective. I guess that's why they changed the name. It was interesting to discover that they put so much PR-esque thought into factors such as location, guests, and publicity of the conference. Reading that story historically, I wouldn't think anything of it. The problem was in the South, so the conference should be in the South. But it was all part of manipulating public opinion.

Another similarity I see is the complete lack of boundaries for advertising. Case in point: salad dressing art expo. I had to shake my head, but it worked. Bernays made several good points, and I agree that public relations is a science. However, PR as a public service is a little hard to swallow.

Getting people to buy big hats instead of little felt ones is not a public service. It's an industrial service. I suppose in the big picture, it allows more people to have jobs at that company. Even so, it's not exactly providing shelter for the homeless. However, it can convince wealthier people to do so.

Some comments

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it doesn't look like anyone has "blogged," no the reading yet. So I guess I'll start.I just finished reading the articles from “rebecca’s pocket,” and “Ground Rules for Polemicists: The Case of Lynne Cheney’s Truths,” wow… that’s a long title. Anyways, these articles brought up some interesting ideas; however, I thought they were kind of unrealistic. I mean it would be amazing if we could actually follow these guidelines before publishing information, but I can not see that happening. For instance, “Do unto your own as you do unto others. Apply the same standards to yourself and your allies that you do to your opponents…” = the golden rule. In an ideal circumstance people would follow this rule, but when we have elections to win, votes to gain, who is really going to stop and say “Well I wouldn’t want him to point out my downfalls, so I’m not going to point out his.” Maybe I just have a pessimistic view of humanity, but for some reason I can’t see anyone truly fulfilling these guidelines. I guess that what’s makes them only “guidelines,” a high standard that we only WISH everyone would abide by.

Reminder about posting to the blog

Hey all,
Well, we've officially passed one week since we last met and won't meet until next week. Given that it's been a while since we discussed posting to the blog in class, I wanted to refresh your memory. I noticed that several people have already posted comments--good to see. As you get ready to post your responses to the reading for next week, remember the following:

• There are still a few people who have not yet accepted their invitation to join the blog. Everyone should have received an invite email with a link to click on. If you have not done so at this point, please accept your invitation ASAP so we can deal with any problems you may encounter.
• While anyone can comment on a post through the ENG 230 blog homepage, in order for your post to appear on the blog main page, you need to log in through Blogger. To do this, go to the blogger homepage and log in there. Once you are logged in, you should be taken to the blogger "Dashboard" which lists the blogs you are subscribed to. Click on "Mahoney's ENG 230 Blog." You can then click on "create a post" and you're off and blogging.
• Please try to post to the blog at least two days before class so others have the chance to read your post and respond. Remember, you can post to the blog as you are reading...don't feel you have to read everything before posting.
• Please let me know if you are having any problems posting so we can work out the kinks ASAP.
  

See you next week, on the blog before then!